Archimedes Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Hi, this came up in a discussion with a statist. He said that there is an implicit contract between me and the state, and therefore they are right to tax me. I answered, that the contract is not valid because it is forced on me and there is no voluntary agreement between me and the state. He then said, that the NAP and Property Rights are also an implicit social contract that an anarcho capitalistic society would force on him. It left me speechless, any thoughts?
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Hi, this came up in a discussion with a statist. He said that there is an implicit contract between me and the state, and therefore they are right to tax me. I answered, that the contract is not valid because it is forced on me and there is no voluntary agreement between me and the state. He then said, that the NAP and Property Rights are also an implicit social contract that an anarcho capitalistic society would force on him. It left me speechless, any thoughts? The NAP is not forced on you. It's just a principle. For example , "Don't rape" is not forced on you. NOT raping is not being forced to DO something. He's free to reject his property rights. This statist can't tell the difference between the initiation of force and not being allowed to do something. 1
shirgall Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Yeah, easy test: state unequivocally "I do not consent to any search" and see how much that changes the current practice pervasive surveillance. Property rights are an explicit negative restriction on the scope of government, a concession given so that people won't rise up and eradicate their governors. They are also an expectation based on historical actions of the state in an area. "Rights" are not a useful concept in ancap society, and there is no state to restrict.
Archimedes Posted February 3, 2015 Author Posted February 3, 2015 The NAP is not forced on you. It's just a principle. For example , "Don't rape" is not forced on you. NOT raping is not being forced to DO something. He's free to reject his property rights. This statist can't tell the difference between the initiation of force and not being allowed to do something. Well the NAP is forced on me, because it can be used to legitimize violence against me. For example when I reject your property rights and and initiate violence against you, you are in your right to defend yourself to the point of killing me. What if i reject this principle? Yeah, easy test: state unequivocally "I do not consent to any search" and see how much that changes the current practice pervasive surveillance. Property rights are an explicit negative restriction on the scope of government, a concession given so that people won't rise up and eradicate their governors. They are also an expectation based on historical actions of the state in an area. "Rights" are not a useful concept in ancap society, and there is no state to restrict. I don't see how this changes the fact that the NAP and property rights are a form of implicit social contract that everyone has to accept.
WasatchMan Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Well the NAP is forced on me, because it can be used to legitimize violence against me. For example when I reject your property rights and and initiate violence against you, you are in your right to defend yourself to the point of killing me. What if i reject this principle? The law of non-contradiction happens to be a constitent logical construct. Logic exists without people, and therefore is not forced on anyone. It is either accepted or not. Reality will sort out those who choose not to accept logic.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Well the NAP is forced on me, because it can be used to legitimize violence against me. For example when I reject your property rights and and initiate violence against you, you are in your right to defend yourself to the point of killing me. What if i reject this principle? It's not a social contract, it's a rational principle. It's not forced on you. "Rape, steal, assault are murder are wrong" or "Don't rape, murder, assault or steal" are not forced on you. If you initiate the violence then you are responsible for the legitimate defensive violence that follows. Your argument is a tiresome trick statists often use. When they say things like "...it can be used to legitimize violence against me" they fail to differentiate between initiatory violence and defensive violence. The NAP or property rights NEVER legitimize the initiation of violence against you. Do you understand? 1
Archimedes Posted February 3, 2015 Author Posted February 3, 2015 I think I understand this now. I can use whatever actions to defend myself, because I can't know if the initiator of violence might try to kill me or not. Also a social contract is something to legitimize the authority of the state over and individual. Since there is no state in Ancapistan, there can be no social contract.
powder Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I think I understand this now. I can use whatever actions to defend myself, because I can't know if the initiator of violence might try to kill me or not. Also a social contract is something to legitimize the authority of the state over and individual. Since there is no state in Ancapistan, there can be no social contract. Uh, no. There is no social contract in a statist society either, it does not exist, no one signed anything or agreed to anything. It is a concept and has no legitimacy. also, what does you can use "whatever actions to defend myself" mean to you? do you think it OK to shoot someone that slaps you in the face?
DCLugi Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I wonder if math can offer something useful here. 2+3=5 is not a contract but it is correct or valid. Accepting the validity of this math equation is like accepting the validity of the NAP. Hmm. I smell something wrong with that after seeing it written.
Pepin Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 No, you do not need any agreement from another to act in self defense. Ethically, a human attacking you is just the same as a bear, and there are no implicit contracts between humans and bears. He then said, that the NAP and Property Rights are also an implicit social contract that an anarcho capitalistic society would force on him. It left me speechless, any thoughts? This is just not understanding the concept. You cannot force the NAP on anyone, just as you can't force non-rape or non-violence on someone. All the NAP does is give moral justification to individuals who believe in it to defend themselves when aggressed against. It isn't a concept that depends on anymore than a single person. What your friend is getting at is that people who believe in the NAP will group together. In such a circumstance, the promise to retaliate with force in one of these groups is not forced on you, rather you are forcing your will on others if you are being retaliated against. To make this clear, the NAP can only enforced if an individual is acting aggressively, meaning that the individual is forcing their will on others, not the other way around. The issues with the argument get even worse with respect to UPB, as someone who does ethically acknowledge property rights and violates them cannot have any ethical issue with someone who violates their property rights. Such an ethical claim would not at all prohibit people acting in self defense, as it is not as though you can have the claim that "those who don't acknowledge property rights and the NAP don't have to act on property rights, while those who do acknowledge the property rights and the NAP cannot enforce the NAP on those who do not believe in the NAP". It gets pretty silly.
Archimedes Posted February 4, 2015 Author Posted February 4, 2015 Uh, no. There is no social contract in a statist society either, it does not exist, no one signed anything or agreed to anything. It is a concept and has no legitimacy. also, what does you can use "whatever actions to defend myself" mean to you? do you think it OK to shoot someone that slaps you in the face? I know that there is no contract in a statist society. However, a social contract is defined as a implicit contract to legitimize the authority of the state. Therefore a statist can only talk about social contracts in a society organized by a state. Yeah, I think it's okay to shoot someone that slaps me in the face. That's because I don't know if the attacker does something that may result in my death. 1
regevdl Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 The UPB sorts this out. Ask the statist to universalize the concept. Where else would implied contract be acceptable and enforced? Can car dealers get in on that? The statist, in an an-cap society can freely reject his own property, pay taxes and subject to that contract and reap the benefits from it. He cannot force you to do the same. to go further or may start out by asking the statist to clarify the 'implied' contract in that you are born into it so it is not a choice. Can we impose contracts on the unborn/freshly born and do they have an opportunity to renegotiate when they turn to legal age? If not, then it is a form of enslavement and cannot use the term 'contract'. Also, how it it implied to a child who is starting out unable to understand language or the contents of the contract? If the contract ceases to fulfill said duties when the child was born, how can that child...now adult extricate themselves from the broken contract? If it's a one-way contract...then again....they are misusing the word contract.
shirgall Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 The circumstance the justifies the use of lethal force is immediate otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. There is no cause to kill someone unless by doing so you are preventing something that substantial. This is universal. Killing (or threatening to kill) to protect property is similar. Defend your livestock against rustlers. Defend your business against the mafia. Defend your savings that you've accumulated all your life. But it's not right to stab some kid for stealing a hubcap. (You can try to prevent it other ways, and if it escalates then things change.) At some point I should work up a philosophical basis for proportionality of response, too, but that looks like it would be a lot of work.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 I think I understand this now. I can use whatever actions to defend myself, because I can't know if the initiator of violence might try to kill me or not. No, I don't know were you got that idea. I don't know how it follows necessarily from what you were talking about. Defense has to be proportionate, otherwise it's just aggression. 1
jpahmad Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 At some point I should work up a philosophical basis for proportionality of response, too, but that looks like it would be a lot of work. shirgall, in a free society, one doesn't need to come up with a philosophical basis for proportionality of response, right?. This is because everyone would just make their own judgement on the matter (man shoots boy for stealing hubcap) and move on with their businesses, either continuing to deal with that particular man, or not. I'll assume that most people would regard that action as excessive just through intuition or "common sense." Therefore, the man would be socially discouraged from acting in that manner in the first place. Would you agree?
powder Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 I agree with jpahmad. appropriate and proportional self defensive is common sense and instinctively obvious to those who are not psychos or severely traumatized - hence my WTF reaction to Archimedes' response.
andkon Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Hi, this came up in a discussion with a statist. He said that there is an implicit contract between me and the state, and therefore they are right to tax me. I answered, that the contract is not valid because it is forced on me and there is no voluntary agreement between me and the state. He then said, that the NAP and Property Rights are also an implicit social contract that an anarcho capitalistic society would force on him. It left me speechless, any thoughts? In some sense he's correct that it's a social contract. If enough people (the social part) don't enforce it, it's not going to work. To say that it's an imposition on him though is conflating a rapist with a rape victim. Not being allowed to steal from others is not imposition, only the stealing is. Why does he favor the coercive state solutions over non-coercive solutions? 1
shirgall Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 shirgall, in a free society, one doesn't need to come up with a philosophical basis for proportionality of response, right?. This is because everyone would just make their own judgement on the matter (man shoots boy for stealing hubcap) and move on with their businesses, either continuing to deal with that particular man, or not. I'll assume that most people would regard that action as excessive just through intuition or "common sense." Therefore, the man would be socially discouraged from acting in that manner in the first place. Would you agree? I agree that people should understand proportionality of response, but I have not identified a hard and fast rule for it.
jpahmad Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 but I have not identified a hard and fast rule for it. Is there even a need to?
shirgall Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Is there even a need to? Not a need, just a desire.
RestoringGuy Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Not being allowed to steal from others is not imposition, only the stealing is. For stealing it could be only part of the story. While I hold my calculator, a thief must impose on me, damaging my hand however gently to free the calculator from my grasp. But when I leave it and walk away, and I'll use words more literally, it's me who's doing the imposing. The technology of calculators doesn't make it owned, it's just storytelling, the idea of mutual gain, and a fiction that my absent self is somehow still there possessing it. That's why I think at least absentee-ownership is a contract, not a principle like NAP, because force is being replaced by indirect ideas. It's done outside the thief's consent. In other words, I rig another person's reality in my absence so when I return my calculator probably won't be gone, and I use this social narrative to defend my imposition. We are attacking freedom of the thief, instead of trying to reverse the polarity of what it means to use force. Otherwise there will be the problem that physical force goes away whenever an attacker decides it's time to call the attack an external defense of their ideas.
powder Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 For stealing it could be only part of the story. While I hold my calculator, a thief must impose on me, damaging my hand however gently to free the calculator from my grasp. But when I leave it and walk away, and I'll use words more literally, it's me who's doing the imposing. The technology of calculators doesn't make it owned, it's just storytelling, the idea of mutual gain, and a fiction that my absent self is somehow still there possessing it. That's why I think at least absentee-ownership is a contract, not a principle like NAP, because force is being replaced by indirect ideas. It's done outside the thief's consent. In other words, I rig another person's reality in my absence so when I return my calculator probably won't be gone, and I use this social narrative to defend my imposition. We are attacking freedom of the thief, instead of trying to reverse the polarity of what it means to use force. Otherwise there will be the problem that physical force goes away whenever an attacker decides it's time to call the attack an external defense of their ideas. ethics are about consent, not the use of force. some people like to be smacked.
RestoringGuy Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 ethics are about consent, not the use of force. some people like to be smacked. It seems to wrong to suggest ethics isn't about force. As an example, I did not consent for you to write those sentences. But ethically you don't need my consent, you're not using force. If a non-aggresssion principle is used, the aggressor is wrong not just by non-consent but also by physical imposition. Without a distinction of force, saying "some people like to be smacked" is exactly the same as saying "some people like to smack others" because their liking to smack is consent. Obviously you can say the victim did not like it, but now you must consider which person is on the receiving end of force. That seems to be the only way to tell which people you need consent from.
powder Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 ..."some people like to smack others" because their liking to smack is consent... really? can you give a definition of consent please. I own my body and the effects of my actions. I worked to get money to pay for a car, it is mine. If you take it without my consent (theft) you are acting immoral, but you are not using physical force against me.
RestoringGuy Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 really? can you give a definition of consent please. I own my body and the effects of my actions. I worked to get money to pay for a car, it is mine. If you take it without my consent (theft) you are acting immoral, but you are not using physical force against me. Think it through. Effect of your action also requires a definition. I was talking about principles, not property conventions.
powder Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 Think it through. Effect of your action also requires a definition. I was talking about principles, not property conventions. Crackies, I understand this last post even less! What am I missing here? I'll ask again, can you define 'consent' for me? How is 'liking to smack' consent? You are talking principles, not property conventions. Again, I am stumped. what principles are you talking about? I thought this was about morality, which is about property rights. and what are 'property conventions'?
RestoringGuy Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 Crackies, I understand this last post even less! What am I missing here? I'll ask again, can you define 'consent' for me? How is 'liking to smack' consent? You are talking principles, not property conventions. Again, I am stumped. what principles are you talking about? I thought this was about morality, which is about property rights. and what are 'property conventions'? No it isn't consent. That was my point, liking it isn't consent either unless you decide whose opinion is more worthy to listen to. That seems to require principle or property to give preference to which consent is real. I'll use your definitions. Do not ask that I define the words you're using. I only demand you use each definition of yours consistently. But you can decide what definition you want.
powder Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 No it isn't consent. That was my point, liking it isn't consent either unless you decide whose opinion is more worthy to listen to. That seems to require principle or property to give preference to which consent is real. I'll use your definitions. Do not ask that I define the words you're using. I only demand you use each definition of yours consistently. But you can decide what definition you want. looks like its just you and me here now RestoringGuy so I will bow out. this is beyond incomprehensible and I am not going to continue down that dark hole of random ideas without backup. ciao.
RestoringGuy Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 I'll just say pondering what is and isn't liked, and quickly connecting it to right and wrong, is also incomprehensible, an idea without backup. Everybody does it though.
labmath2 Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Aren't all forms of property rights outside of oneself social?
bugzysegal Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 shirgall, in a free society, one doesn't need to come up with a philosophical basis for proportionality of response, right?. This is because everyone would just make their own judgement on the matter (man shoots boy for stealing hubcap) and move on with their businesses, either continuing to deal with that particular man, or not. I'll assume that most people would regard that action as excessive just through intuition or "common sense." Therefore, the man would be socially discouraged from acting in that manner in the first place. Would you agree? Please tell Texas that, that would be excessive. Person was acquitted for killing a man who stole $20 from a tip jar. Another was acquitted for shooting an unarmed 13 year old boy for breaking in to steal snacks. Are you not in anyway incensed by incidents like these? How could one not call them wrong? If anything has intrinsic value, it's human life.
jpahmad Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 Please tell Texas that, that would be excessive. Person was acquitted for killing a man who stole $20 from a tip jar. Another was acquitted for shooting an unarmed 13 year old boy for breaking in to steal snacks. Are you not in anyway incensed by incidents like these? How could one not call them wrong? If anything has intrinsic value, it's human life. I do call them wrong. And I would not interact with the person who did those things, nor encourage anyone else to.
bugzysegal Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 I do call them wrong. And I would not interact with the person who did those things, nor encourage anyone else to.But how if there is no propotionality? I might misunderstand the NAP.
jpahmad Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 But how if there is no propotionality? I might misunderstand the NAP. how what? how do I call it wrong?
Recommended Posts